To Participate on Thurstonblog

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Willard "Mitt" Romney is just returning from what many regard as a calamitous trip to Europe. He gratuitously insulted the Brits, he pandered to the Israelis, and in Poland, his handlers told reporters to "Kiss my ass!"
Over the course of his campaign, his tendency toward mendacity has been well-documented. Willard seemingly lies whenever he opens his mouth. And most charitably, many of his statements are simply regarded as flip-flops. Who can forget his vow in 2004 that, on the subject of gay rights, he would run to the left of Ted Kennedy?
And let's not even get into the subject of tax returns ...
What I'm suggesting is that Willard Romney is perhaps the weakest candidate that the Republican party could have conceivably chosen, and that this view is held by many Republicans, as well. I would also observe that the Republican National Convention has not yet convened. Is it possible that Republicans might come to their senses before the Convention and reconsider their choice? It's certainly likely that more gaffes will continue to occur. Willard has not yet names his running mate; a choice that is fraught with peril. Will he choose Creationist Bobby Jindal? Or misogynist Robert McDonnell? If he's worried that Pennsylvania's or Florida's Jim Crow laws will not be enough for him to carry those states will he turn to Rick Santorum or Rick Scott? Even if he selects a relative moderate like Jon Huntsman he risks enraging the Lunatic Fringe that has seemingly overtaken the Republican leadership.
In short, there's plenty of time between now and the Republican Convention for Romney to make a fatal error. And there is no shortage of Republican wannabe candidates who would gladly step on Willard's corpse to get to the nomination.
SO ... when Democrats correctly point out Romney's many failings, we may be inadvertently encouraging Republicans to replace him at the top of their ticket. Not that other prospective candidates might not be equally amusing (or terrifying, depending on your perspective), but aren't we better off dealing with the Devil we know?

This week, there was no bigger issue in presidential politics than gay marriage. (More on that here.) By definition, any issue this big is a potentially fraught one for politicians and their advisers–and gay marriage probably more so than most. As Mitt Romney put it, it’s a “tender” subject. It’s also one on which public opinion has been rapidly shifting. Saying something dumb or offensive could easily inflame the debate and even change the course of the race. That’s why talking points were invented. Earlier today, one of the top Republican pollsters, Jan van Lohuizen–he was George W. Bush’s pollster–circulated a strategy memo to Republican consultants and politicians that laid out some pretty fascinating numbers on how the American public, and Republicans specifically, feel about gay-rights issues. He also suggests some talking points, which I guarantee you’ll hear echoing around the political world in the coming days and weeks. Here’s a copy of the memo, passed along by a Republican operative:

Memorandum

From: Jan R. van Lohuizen Date: 05/11/12Re: Same Sex Marriage

Background: in view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).

The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.

Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:

Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation

Protections against bullying and harassment

Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Right to visit partners in hospitals

Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death

Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”

Other thoughts / Q&A:

Follow up to questions about affirmative action: “This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

Why public attitudes might be changing: “As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

Conservative fundamentals: “As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

Who knows why Mitt Romney doesn’t release his old tax records. Maybe
he’s stubborn. Nobody likes being told what to do. Could be an
incredibly simple explanation like he lost them and is embarrassed. For
all we know the accordion file of old returns fell off a shelf in the
garage and is buried under a pile of old bikes and unopened anniversary
gifts.

Promised to release his 2011 tax records when he files on or around
October 15. Wrong way, Mitt. We don’t care about the five years you’ve
been running for president. We want to know what you did before the
national spotlights were trained on you. Who are you in the dark? Do you
change into tights and a cape? Or is the King of Bain really Bane?
You’re so Bane, you probably think this column is about you.

Desperate to change the conversation, the presumptive tax dodger
slipped out of the country and ran away to the Olympics. Because that’s
where the cameras are pointed. And apparently he’s determined to get in
front of them in order to make verbal gaffes on subjects other than his
taxes. Making people cogitate even furiouser, what nuggets of
deliciousness could possibly be lurking unseen?

Romney has the best lawyers and accountants money could buy, so
probably nothing overtly illegal. Perhaps some solid investments that
might pin the red on the dodgy side on the moral- ometer. You know.
High-stakes Monaco baccarat winnings. Heroin spatulas. Far Eastern
white-slavery futures. Not here to judge. We’re talking different
cultures.

Problem is, in a void, one’s imagination naturally runs wild about
any Unobtanium. Accordingly, please allow me to wildly offer up a couple
of conjectures on possible skeletons buried in the Mitt Romney tax
crypts:

Doesn’t just have a bank account in the Cayman Islands; owns two of the three Cayman Islands.

Tithes 10 percent of income every year to Scientology.

Claims nine kids as dependents.

Adjusted net worth after taxes is a bazilliondy dollars.

Collects royalties from Kraft for the copyrighted term “Preppy Dip.”

Turns out Mitt really IS short for Mittens.

In 2004, he wrote off $60,000 in Chinese-made hair products.

Currently holds 60 percent of Greece’s debt.

Never checks the donation box at the bottom of his 1040.

Back in the late 80s, his closest business associate was Pablo Escobar.

Top three charitable donations were to Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood and Code Pink.

His Swiss bank account number is 666.

Served 18 months in prison for tax evasion while governor of Massachusetts and nobody noticed. Known in the yard as “Shifty.”

Holds the lease on a 120,000 square foot warehouse in Nevada filled to the rafters with sex toys.

Yearly health care deductions include three pages for nickel-metal-hydride batteries.

Entire estate has been placed under the control of Rafalca, the Olympic horse.

Was the brains behind Bernie Madoff.

Claims Newt Gingrich books-on-tape as therapeutic deductions.

Has the state of South Dakota placed in his IRA.

Not only paid no taxes for the years 1990-2002, but it turns out we owe him $400,000,000.
..................................................................................................................................

By JEREMY W. PETERS, July 22, 2012

National Journal said it would ban the use of quotations that had been massaged or manipulated by its sources, joining a growing chorus of news organizations that are objecting to a practice that has become increasingly common in political journalism.

In a memorandum to the staff, Ron Fournier, National Journal’s editor in chief, said, “If a public official wants to use NJ as a platform for his/her point of view, the price of admission is a quote that is on-record, unedited and unadulterated.”

Quote approval has become accepted in Washington and on the campaign trail, with politicians and candidates often refusing to grant interviews unless they have final say over how their quotations appear in print. The New York Times examined the issue in an article last week, drawing attention to a part of news gathering that journalists had long complained about but felt pressured into accepting.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns routinely demand that reporters consent to quote approval when giving interviews. If the reporters agree, quotations from campaign officials, advisers and candidates’ family members have to be sent to a press aide for the final go-ahead. Quotes sent back to reporters are often edited for style and clarity.

If reporters refuse, they are not granted an interview. National Journal is among several news outlets that have said they find quote approval to be troubling, especially now that it has become standard for many politicians.

The Times has said that it encourages its reporters to push back against sources who demand quote approval and that it is reviewing how its policies might address the issue. The Washington Examiner said last week that it, too, would not accept interviews granted under the condition of quote approval.

Politico’s editor in chief, John Harris, said he advised reporters to resist such conditions for interviews and expressed dismay that political figures were becoming more comfortable avoiding on-the-record interviews.

“Journalists need to work hard to make sure we are doing everything possible to insist on accessibility and accountability,” Mr. Harris said last week.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

..................................................................................................................................
Some of the commenters on some of The Olympian’s articles have done it yet again. They posted so many nasty comments on the stories about Troy Fisher that the moderators finally closed commenting on two articles and deleted the existing comments. At least one newly-established poster posted 64 comments (according to “southsoundeditor”) that were IMO utterly without any redeeming features; “southsoundeditor” blacklisted that person. Of course, a new ID was established, and he/she started posting in the same vein as under the previous ID (fortunately it was wiped out by the deletion of all the comments).

It’s damned fools like that who are forcing The Olympian (and the News Tribune) to change or contemplate changing commenting formats. If commenters don’t behave better, we soon won’t be able to post comments at all.
..................................................................................................................................

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A Juneau man has filed a lawsuit trying to compel the state of Alaska to prove that President Obama is qualified to be on the ballot.

Gordon Warren Epperly claims in the lawsuit that Obama's citizenship status is unknown, and that Obama was illegally inaugurated in 2009. KTOO reports (http://is.gd/quT1TH) Epperly also questions U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi's right to run for federal office since she's a woman.

The lawsuit was filed against Obama, Pelosi, the state's election director and Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell, a Republican who oversees Alaska elections.

The state has filed a motion to dismiss. Assistant Alaska Attorney General Elizabeth Bakalar wrote that Epperly's statements "are repugnant and absurd."

She also says there's no factual basis for his claims, other than "wholly discredited conspiracy theories."

The religious faiths of President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney will have little weight in November's presidential election, a poll showed on Thursday.

Sixty percent of voters are aware that Romney is a Mormon, and 81 percent say it does not matter to them, according to the poll by thePew Research Center. The awareness level is almost unchanged from four months ago, during the Republican primary elections.

"Republicans and white evangelicals overwhelmingly back Romney irrespective of their views of his faith, and Democrats and seculars overwhelmingly oppose him regardless of their impression."

The United States has never had a Mormon president.

Obama is a Christian but the view that he is Muslim persists almost four years into his presidency, with 17 percent of voters saying he is Muslim. Forty-nine percent say he is Christian, down from 55 percent near the end of his 2008 campaign, and 31 percent say they do not know Obama's religion.

By the end of presidential candidate Mitt Romney's first full day in London on Thursday, he had been the target of a verbal jab from the British prime minister and had been mocked by the city's mayor, who spoke before a cheering crowd.

So it is safe to say thatRomney's trip - carefully choreographed to boost his image on an international stage - has not gone exactly as planned.

The Republican ruffled British feathers by appearing to suggest in a U.S. television interview on Wednesday that London was not ready for the Games, whose opening ceremony in the British capital is on Friday.

"It's hard to know just how well it will turn out," Romney, who led the Salt Lake City Winter Games in 2002, told NBC News of London's Olympic preparations. "There are a few things that were disconcerting," including the threat of a strike by immigration and customs officials.

The comments provoked an uproar in the feisty British media and drew a biting response from Prime Minister David Cameron, one of the government officials with whom Romney met briefly on Thursday.

Cameron, who was forced to deploy extra troops to bolster security at the Olympics to cover a shortfall left by a private contractor, defended Britain's handling of the Games and seemed to suggest that the challenge was significantly greater than what Romney faced at Salt Lake City's much smaller Winter Games a decade ago.

"We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world," the Conservative prime minister said during a news conference at the Olympic Park in London. "Of course, it is easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere."

"I hear there's a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we're ready," Johnson said, in a moment that could have been scripted as a commercial for U.S. President Barack Obama, Romney's opponent in the November 6 election.

"He wants to know whether we're ready," Johnson called out to the crowd. "Are we ready? Are we ready? Yes, we are."

The scene, and Cameron's remarks, put Romney in damage control mode at the start of a foray to Britain, Israel and Poland that is scheduled to be light on policy pronouncements and heavy on photo opportunities and fundraising.

Romney, who has made much of his record in helping to save the failing Salt Lake Games, predicted the London Games will be highly successful.

"We talked about the great progress that has been made in organizing the Games," Romney said after meeting Cameron in a Downing Street parlor where the arena for Olympic beach volleyball could seen out the back window.

"My experience as the Olympic organizer is that there are always a few very small things that end up not going quite right," Romney added. "Those get ironed out, and then when the Games themselves begin, the athletes take over."

DID HE SAY TOO MUCH?

Romney has traded on his Olympic stint in a political career that has included serving as the governor of Massachusetts. He often cites his Salt Lake City experience as a key reason why he has the can-do spirit to rebuild the U.S. economy.

His comments about the London Games followed what already had been an inauspicious start to his week-long overseas trip, designed in part to establish his foreign policy credentials with voters back home.

Romney had to disavow comments by an unidentified adviser who told the Daily Telegraph that Obama, the United States' first African-American president, had mishandled U.S.-British ties and that Romney better understood the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" between the two countries.

On Thursday, Romney also took the unusual step of acknowledging that he had met with the head of MI6, Britain's secretive foreign intelligence agency, when asked about his discussions with British officials about Syria.

Such conversations are not normally discussed publicly by government leaders.

"I can only say that I appreciated the insights and the perspectives of the leaders of the government here and opposition here as well as the head of MI6 as we discussed Syria and hoped for a more peaceful future for that country," he said.

Romney also is using his visit to raise campaign cash from Americans living in Britain, and plans to pull in about $2 million to add to his huge campaign war chest.

The Republican was careful to avoid criticizing Obama while abroad, but in his fundraising speech he did pledge to restore to the White House a bust of Winston Churchill that Obama sent back to the British government when he took office in 2009.

"I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," Romney said.

Romney's discussions with British officials, including Cameron, Labour Party leader Ed Miliband of the opposition, and others were dominated by the Euro zone crisis and its impact on the British and U.S. economies, a senior Romney adviser said.

Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt and Afghanistan all came up during the discussions, but Romney would not talk about specific policy proposals to avoid any appearance of critiquing Obama, the adviser said.

Romney, who polls indicate is in a tight race with Obama, is due to leave London on Saturday for Israel.

By STEPHEN BRAUN and JACK GILLUM, July 24, 2012

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said
he had no active role in Bain Capital, the private equity firm he
founded, after he exited in February 1999 to take over Salt Lake City's
Winter Olympics bid. But according to Bain associates and others
familiar with Romney's actions at the time, he stayed in regular contact
with his partners over the following months, tending to his partnership
interests and negotiating his separation from the company.

Those
familiar with Romney's discussions with his Bain partners said the
contacts included several meetings in Boston, the company's home base,
but were limited to matters that did not affect the firm's investments
or other management decisions. Yet Romney continued to oversee his
partnership stakes even as he disengaged from the firm, personally
signing or approving a series of corporate and legal documents through
the spring of 2001, according to financial reports reviewed by The
Associated Press.The details of Romney's contacts with his Bain
partners between his 1999 departure and his separation from the company
in mid-2001 could show how involved he was — either as CEO or passive
investor — in several multimillion-dollar investment deals, bankruptcies
and a spate of layoffs and overseas job shifts at Bain-owned companies
that reportedly occurred during that span. Romney's role became a
campaign issue in recent weeks because corporate records from the time
showed his interests in some of those deals — despite his insistence
that he gave up any decision-making authority once he left Bain.
"When partners depart a private equity company and are no longer
active, there are various ways that their interests may be affected,"
said Colin C. Blaydon, director of Dartmouth University's Center for
Private Equity and Entrepreneurship. "In some cases it may not be
affected at all, but they still own points in the funds and the carried
interest that is paid as part of their partnership stake. It's entirely
possible to step back from a previous management role, but that all
depends on the arrangements they make and the management structure
created to replace them."A clear accounting of Romney's contacts
with Bain has been hampered by his presidential campaign's reluctance
to discuss the period in detail and complicated by conflicting accounts
in some of Romney's comments and financial reports. Both the Romney
campaign and Bain have declined to provide documentary materials that
could shed light on Romney's role after 1999.Romney's campaign
says that once he agreed to head the Olympics bid, he was no longer
"involved in the management of that business or the investment decisions
that occurred." Campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul added that "it took
some time to transfer his ownership to the other partners, which is not
surprising given the growth and success of the firm."Romney
testified during a 2002 Massachusetts court case that he flew back and
forth between Boston and Salt Lake City frequently in the first half of
1999, returning at least four times to attend board meetings of office
supply giant Staples Inc., which had named him a director. Romney said
nothing about his dealings with Bain during that testimony, which came
during a legal challenge to his Massachusetts residency that was aimed
at thwarting his campaign for governor.Several associates now
say that Romney made repeated trips between Salt Lake and Boston, where
he met at times with his former partners, mostly to discuss his
severance from the firm. The Boston Globe reported last week that Romney
also met with his Bain partners at a 15th anniversary celebration in
Palm Beach, Fla., in early 1999. "Some were group conversations.
Some were one on one," said a legal expert familiar with Romney's
discussions with his Bain partners. This person, who spoke on condition
of anonymity to discuss confidential business dealings, said that Romney
did not relinquish his Bain ownership after taking the Olympics role
but that Romney took care to avoid the day-to-day role of a corporate
manager.This person said that when Romney left, a five-partner
management committee was already in place. That account echoed a similar
version given by Edward Conard, a former Bain partner who donated $1
million last year to a political committee supporting Romney's
presidential run. "There was a management committee running Bain
to transition from Mitt to a new structure," Conard said last week
during an interview on MSNBC. At the same time, Conard said, Romney's
exit was complicated by the fact that "Mitt's names were on the
documents as chief executive and sole owner of the company."Those
documents, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, contain
dozens of references to Romney and his holdings. An AP analysis of
thousands of SEC filings in that three-year period found at least 39
documents in which Romney was listed as sole shareholder, president or
director of investment funds that controlled large stakes in
Bain-related companies.Some legal experts said those records
show that Romney remained the "controlling person," as some filings
described him, in the deals that Bain struck in that span. "From a
corporate law point of view, it would not be kosher to hold him out as
president when he had no role in the company," said George Washington
University law professor Arthur E. Wilmarth Jr.Other experts
cautioned that while federal "beneficial ownership" rules require the
listing of partners whose voting stakes exceed 5 percent of an
investment in a public company, any partner with voting power in the
same investment could also exercise authority. While Romney controlled
the management entity running Bain, his partners controlled connected
general partnerships that directed the investment funds. As a result,
Romney was not the only Bain partner with lines of authority over the
investments cited in the SEC filings. "Anyone who has voting
power over the shares could be the owner for reporting purposes," said
Brian J. Lane, a partner at the Washington law firm of Gibson Dunn and
former director of the SEC's Corporate Finance Division, which oversees
corporate filings.In addition to those SEC reports, other
corporate documents obtained by the AP show Romney's personal signature
at least 10 times on large stock transactions or ownership statements
tied to Bain investment deals at the time. Those documents include
Romney's signature on federal stock forms approving the sales of large
stakes in circuit board manufacturer DDi Corp. The company went into
bankruptcy in 2003.SEC filings by Bain also showed that Romney's
digital signature_ a legal version of his personal script — appeared on
at least 18 other stock ownership records between 1999 and 2001. The
filings were part of Bain investments in Therma Wave, a heat testing
company; Wesley Jessen Visioncare; and Staples Inc.Romney's
defenders argue that such signings reflected his limited role as a Bain
partner and investor, but not as the firm's manager. One former senior
Bain partner said that once Romney had accepted the Olympics position,
he would "make suggestions but not decisions." The former partner added
that Romney's extensive partnership stakes required him to respond to —
and at times approve — a succession of ownership documents stemming from
the company's continuing investment deals.Documents reviewed by
the AP also showed that Romney signed several power-of-attorney
statements that were used repeatedly during the transition, allowing
other senior Bain partners and several lawyers for Bain to represent his
interests in the investment deals the company struck between 1999 and
2001.Blaydon said such moves are common in private equity deals
and also could have provided Romney with legal flexibility as he moved
to disengage from Bain. "If he wanted to dial in by phone, he could
have," Blaydon said. "There's no doubt he could have played a bigger
role if he wanted, but if he wanted to have minimal involvement, he had
that flexibility."Other private equity experts questioned
whether Romney's continuing financial stakes could be so easily
separated from his longtime CEO role. Victor Fleischer, a University of
Colorado law professor and private equity expert who urged corporate tax
code reforms during congressional testimony last year, said Romney
could not simply waive his duties as Bain's CEO and major shareholder.Many
of Bain's investment funds and several of Romney's own managing
partnership entities were based in Delaware. Fleischer said the state's
corporate code required that the fund manager "perform whatever
partnership duties they have with the greatest attention. He was still
president, CEO and sole shareholder of some of the management companies
for some of these funds, and under Delaware law, owed fiduciary duties
to his investors. If you can't fulfill your fiduciary duties as owner,
you have to waive your partnerships."Charles M. Elson, a
University of Delaware finance professor and an authority on the state's
corporate laws, countered that Delaware law "is flexible enough to give
(Bain) leeway in their decision-making. The partnership law is
enabling. They could make decisions without him."Even Romney's
explanation of his role at Bain after 1999 appears to have shifted in
recent years, as shown in notes that his financial trustee provided in
successive presidential candidate financial reports submitted in 2007
and in 2011 to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. The lawyer
administering Romney's finances, R. Bradford Malt, said in 2007 that
Romney did not have "any active role with any Bain Capital entity" after
1999. In 2011, that explanation broadened, saying Romney had also "not
been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."Both
explanations appear at odds with statements attributed to Romney in a
corporate press release from July 1999, five months after he left to
take over the Olympic bid. The press release, recently posted on the
Daily Kos website, announced the departure that year from Bain by two of
Romney's founding partners. The release also stated that Romney
remained Bain's CEO while on a "part-time leave of absence" to head the
2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.D'Jamila Salem, a former
Boston public relations executive who authored the press release,
recalled recently that Bain officials provided the quotes and
information about Romney at the time.Salem was listed on the
release as a press contact along with Joshua Bekenstein, a founding Bain
partner. Bekenstein also substituted at times for Romney on SEC filings
under power of attorney during that period. Bekenstein, still a Bain
managing director, was one of several company executives who did not
respond to calls from AP for comment.

It will take a constitutional amendment to reverse the flood of independent money inundating American elections in the aftermath of the US Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee was told on Tuesday.

New laws alone will not be enough to counter the impact of the 2010 high court decision establishing that corporations have a First Amendment right to make independent political expenditures during election season, witnesses told the panel.

The hearing of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights arises in a particularly heated election season in which new political spending enabled by Citizens United has played a prominent role. The hearing was chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois and was entirely a production of Democratic members of the Senate.

“I believe, as you believe, that the solution here is a constitutional amendment to restore the power to the hands of the people, not the corporations,” said Senator Max Baucus (D) of Montana, one of the witnesses.

“My proposal would right the wrong of Citizens United – simply overturn it – and give back to the people, like those in Montana, the ability to once again say we are not for sale,” he said.

A campaign to amend the Constitution is already underway with nearly 1.9 million signatures, supportive resolutions from 275 cities and towns, and the backing of state legislatures in California, Maryland, Hawaii, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

Senator Durbin compared the campaign finance issue to other historic national problems that required constitutional amendments to resolve, such as ending slavery, extending the vote to women, and invalidating poll taxes.

“I have reached the conclusion that a constitutional amendment is necessary,” Senator Durbin said. “It is an uphill battle. It may take years.”

The hearing came a week after a campaign spending disclosure law – the DISCLOSE Act – was bottled up in the US Senate by Republican opposition. It also comes amid what is expected to be the most expensive presidential election season in history – including massive spending by so-called super PACs.

The Citizens United decision and a related federal appeals court ruling five months later set the stage for the current proliferation of organizations seeking to influence the outcome of national elections while working independently of candidates and their political parties.

By remaining independent they are protected by the First Amendment from federal campaign finance restrictions, under the court decisions.

President Obama and other Democrats have denounced the Citizens United decision as a setback for American democracy by empowering wealthy corporations at the expense of ordinary voters.

Republicans have defended the decision on free speech grounds. Not a single Republican committee member made an appearance at Tuesday’s hearing.

The hearing featured Senator Baucus and three other Democratic lawmakers who have introduced measures designed to undercut or completely overturn Citizens United.

Mr. Shapiro was the only individual at the hearing who sought to defend the Citizens United decision. He called it one of the most misunderstood high court decisions ever.

“It doesn’t stand for half of what many people say it does,” he said.

“Take for example President Obama’s famous statement that the decision ‘reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates of special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections,’ ” Shapiro said, quoting the president. “In that sentence, the former constitutional law professor stated four errors of constitutional law.”

Shapiro said the decision did not reverse a century of law. Instead, it invalidated a 1990 decision that allowed restrictions on political speech to level the electoral playing field rather than the accepted rationale of preventing corruption, he said.

Citizens United had nothing to do with foreign influence in elections, which remains illegal, he said. And there is no indication that corporate spending has greatly increased this election cycle, Shapiro said.

Instead, the spending increases are coming from wealthy individuals.

Shapiro said the best response to the Citizens United decision would be to require full disclosure of donors to super PACs and to lift current restrictions on contributions to federal candidates.

Professor Lessig disagreed. He said such proposals fail to recognize the pernicious nature of a broader form of corruption of the election process.

Lessig said the problem is the concentration of influence in a handful of wealthy donors capable of wielding large amounts of money quickly.

“It is as if America runs two elections each election cycle – one a money election, and one a voting election,” he said. “To succeed in the latter, you must succeed in the former first.”

The professor said that in post-Citizens United campaigns, the problem is not the amount of money, it is the source of the money. Candidates will understand the importance of such “independent” donors, and that understanding exerts a kind of corrupting influence, he said.

Lessig said mere disclosure laws alone would not be a sufficient response to such corruption. The answer, he said, requires a system of publicly financed elections.

“Only a system of citizen funded elections – where dependence upon ‘the funders’ is the same as dependence upon ‘the People’ – could reform that corruption,” Lessig told the senators.

Joining Lessig and Shapiro was former Republican presidential candidate Charles “Buddy” Roemer, the former governor of Louisiana, who is a firm advocate of limits on campaign contributions.

Another witness at the hearing, Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent, said the democratic foundations of the nation are currently enduring their most severe attack in history on both economic and political fronts.

“We are well on our way to see our country move to an oligarchy, where power rests in the hands of a few families,” he said.

Senator Sanders said inequality in the US is worse than it has been at any time since the 1920s. He noted that 23 billionaire families have contributed at lease $250,000 each so far in this year’s campaigns.

He added that the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans – roughly half the country.

“What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to say to these same billionaires and the corporations they control: ‘You own and control the economy, you own Wall Street, you own the coal companies, you own the oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own theUnited States government,' ” Sanders said.

“This is the essence of what Citizens United is all about – and that’s why it must be overturned,” he said.

Rare is the Tea Party-tested Republican senator who hangs an image of the Kennedys' Hyannisport home over his desk and shows off the painter's personal inscription.

"Orrin," reads the note, scribbled below a cobalt-blue sea. "We'll leave the light on at the compound for you anytime. Ted Kennedy, '91."

The beacon of bipartisanship that defined their odd-couple relationship still guides Utah's Orrin Hatch. He didn't advertise it as he wooed and won over the tea partiers who, two years ago, toppled fellow conservative Robert Bennett from his Senate perch.

But now, with his state's Senate GOP nomination in hand and re-election to a seventh term all but assured, Hatch, 78, can think about his legacy.

He's very clear about what he wants: As the senior Republican in the Senate, his party's top voice on the tax-writing Finance Committee, Hatch wants a deal that restructures the tax code while also slowing and even stopping the government's accumulation of debt. To get it, he says he'll practice the art of compromise over the take-my-marbles-and-leave mentality that has tied up Congress in recent years.

"There has to be a course correction," Hatch said in a recent interview. "If I am chairman of the Finance Committee, you can bet your sweet bippy I will take a leading role."

A new tax code, he says, would have to be bipartisan to pass Congress and, as importantly, have credibility with the Americans who will fork over large chunks of their paychecks under it. Orchestrating it will require a delicate touch with Washington's most muscular interest groups and stubborn factions of both parties.

In the vaulted Capitol hideaway office he inherited from Kennedy — the seascape hanging nearby — Hatch offered a reality check on how lawmaking happens.

"Neither side is going to get everything they want," he said. "But it is important that we move ahead, and that we do the art of the doable to pull this country out of the fiscal morass it's in. And I think we can."

Hatch can be so explicit about compromise now because he is the ultimate Senate survivor:

—Of his own stern, televised reading of "The Exorcist" during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

—Of a failed presidential bid in 2000 that was dwarfed by the George W. Bush juggernaut.

—Of his vote for the 2008 bank bailout, an apostasy to the same tea partiers who ousted Bennett.

—And in June, of the first real threat to re-election since winning his Senate seat in 1976.

Washington's political tribal chiefs know that the conservatism Hatch has emphasized in his re-election campaign co-exists with an interest in getting results on Capitol Hill and a long-demonstrated willingness to compromise.

The type of real, red-faced debate that delighted Hatch and Kennedy also produced landmark laws like the American Disabilities Act and children's health insurance. With former Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, the bellowing begat federally subsidized child care. Tense talks with no less a partisan than Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., produced a patent exemption that cleared the way for the generic drug industry.

Hatch's last two years of ideological purity — a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, compared with an average 84 percent rating the previous five years — may have been driven by a survival instinct, but it still irritates some.

Vice President Biden recalled how the Utah Republican was an original co-sponsor of his 1994 bill that became the Violence Against Women Act, only to vote against its renewal and expansion this year.

"Orrin and I always had a good personal relationship. We disagreed on a lot but where we found common ground, we worked together," Biden said in a statement to The Associated Press. "I hope those days return."

Tax reform could well be Hatch's enduring legacy. The contours of the debate are clear and broadly philosophical: Republicans think the government levies enough taxes already but growing the economy would produce more revenue. Democrats say the wealthiest are not taxed enough.

Much, of course, depends on who wins the White House and control of Congress.

Here is where the debate would start: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney agrees with Hatch that there should be a one-year extension on all of the Bush-era tax cuts, then comprehensive tax reform. President Barack Obama wants to let those tax cuts expire for Americans making more than $250,000 a year, and then do reform.

Hatch would have great say in where the discussion ends — with a new tax code, a collapse of talks or something in-between. He has willing negotiating partners in both parties, beginning with his Democratic counterpart atop the Finance Committee hierarchy, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, and including some of the most agile dealmakers in Congress.

"Orrin is good, one of the best," says Waxman.

No one suggests that Hatch, for all his red meat bluster lately, comes back to the Senate next year any less of a dealmaker. Right now, longtime colleagues say, Hatch is doing what Hatch does best: adapt to the "rhythms of change."

"Politics is not a static business. The ability of someone who's good at this, and unfortunately we don't give enough credit for it, is the ability to understand that the public's mood is not static either," Dodd, now president and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in an interview. "Orrin's got a very good ear. And he used it."

The South Carolina Republican who calls himself "Sen. Tea Party" attributes Hatch's longevity to engaging, rather than dismissing, critics from the right.

"He didn't go home and try to explain to people why they were wrong," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a chief patron of tea party candidates. "He went home and listened."

By the time the tea party had defeated Bennett in a state convention two years ago, Hatch was already on the move. He faced voters deeply suspicious about Washington insiders. For those who said that 36 years in office was enough, he said that he wouldn't be running again if it weren't for the chance he'll become chairman of the Finance Committee. For those who said he wasn't conservative enough, he gravitated to the right.

Hatch also spent about $10 million on a campaign unlike any Utah had seen. He won endorsement from Romney, another of Utah's favorite sons. In the state's June primary running against former state Sen. Dan Liljenquist, Hatch won two-thirds of the vote.

Three months from the general election, Hatch is still riling up the base. He'll casually toss off a comment about how he doesn't understand why Obama's experience as a community organizer qualifies him to lead the country. He framed Obama's plans to tax the wealthiest Americans as an attack on small businesses.

For many, the question is whether Hatch hews to conservatism in what are sure to be tough negotiations on taxes and changing entitlement benefit programs.

State laws requiring identification cards for voters have raised big issues that will carry into fall election season, as three key rulings are expected at the same time the presidential election heats up.

And in one case that has Supreme Court ramifications, it might be a great-great-grandmother’s testimony that could settle the voter ID issue in a key swing state.

Viviette Applewhite, 93, is the lead plaintiff in the ACLU’s lawsuit in Pennsylvania, in a case that could have long-term implications for stricter voter ID laws.

Currently, there are pitched battles in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Texas over photo IDs as a requirement to vote.

The issue will get a lot of attention as state court rulings are issued later this summer in Minnesota and Pennsylvania. The Texas case was heard by the District of Columbia federal appeals court and a ruling there is also expected by Labor Day.

“This November, restrictive voter ID states will provide 127 electoral votes—nearly half of the 270 needed to win the presidency,” The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York Center for Law said in a report issued on July 18. “Therefore, the ability of eligible citizens without photo ID to obtain one could have a major influence on the outcome of the 2012 election.”

The Brennan Center says as many as 500,000 voters could be affected at the polls, in just 10 statesthis November. It says 10 percent of voters, in those states, didn’t have government-issued photo IDs required by newer voter ID laws, including 25 percent of African-Americans and 18 percent of Americans over 65.

Pennsylvania is one of four states that falls into the category of “strict” photo identification requirements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Georgia, Tennessee and Kansas also have narrow laws on polling IDs requiring a state-approved photo.

Five other states require or request photo IDs at the polls: Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, South Dakota and Idaho.

Ohio, Virginia and Arizona fall into the category of “strict” non-photo ID states, where a bank statement or utility bill must be presented, in place of a government-issued photo ID.

Two arguments about voter ID cards

Law supporters believe the voter ID requirements will prevent fraud at the polls. Opponents say the voter ID laws are unconstitutional because they are a version of the “poll tax” outlawed by the 24thamendment.

One argument over the voter ID issue is about “free” ID cards offered by states to voters who don’t have a driver’s license or a government-issued ID card.

Supporters of the voter ID laws say people seeking ID cards need to supply the kind of same proof they would need for other basic social functions, like attending a school or getting a job. They also say states offer free alternative ID cards, and voters have plenty of time to make arrangements to get the cards.

Opponents says states with voter ID laws require paid copies of birth certificates to obtain a “free” card, which is enough to keep lower-income voters away from the polls.

Another argument is over accessibility.

The Brennan Center says long travel distances to approved ID offices are barriers on many levels to people of color, senior citizens, and the disabled. It estimates 13 percent of voters in 10 “strict voter ID” states don’t have access to a motor vehicle and live more than 10 miles from an office that offers IDs.

The court case in Texas has been contentious, since its proposed voter ID laws are strict, and they must be approved by the federal government because the state is on a review list as part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

For example, Texas won’t accept student IDs as proof at the polls, but it will accept gun permits.

Pennsylvania as a Supreme Court test case

Pennsylvania is a big test case for voter ID laws. It requires photo ID cards issued by the Commonwealth and it also accepts student IDs from accredited colleges.

But if a voter wants a free voter ID card, the state requires four documents submitted in person at a Department of Transportation office. The process gets more complicated for voters without a certified birth certificate. Voters don’t have to buy a birth certificate copy, but they have to provide the same information on a form, which is then investigated by the state within 10 days.

It is the problem of getting a timely birth certificate in Pennsylvania that is at the center of Viviette Applewhite’s case.

A state court will hear arguments from the administration of Governor Tom Corbett and the American Civil Liberties Union on July 25 in the Applewhite case.

The ACLU says Applewhite has tried three times to buy a copy of her birth certificate from the state. It never arrived before she joined the lawsuit in the case, even though Applewhite paid for the documents.

The Pennsylvania trial should last a week, and the 93-year-old Applewhite will be at the heart of the testimony, along with other plaintiffs.

The Pennsylvania case will be tracked by Supreme Court watchers, since the state is seeking a higher level of proof from voters than was required by Indiana when it passed its voter ID law.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Indiana law in 2008, saying it didn’t require burdensome acts from voters.

The Pennsylvania case also got national attention in June, when a state GOP leader said voter ID restrictions would help Mitt Romney win the state.

“Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. (Mitt) Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done,“ he said at a party meeting.

Stephen Miskin, a spokesman for Turzai, clarified the statement.

“Rep. Turzai was speaking at a partisan, political event. He was simply referencing, for the first time in a long while, the Republican Presidential candidate will be on a more even keel thanks to voter ID… Anyone looking further into it has their own agenda,” he said.